ᐅ KfW financing – is it necessary or not?

Smialbuddler schrieb:

I just want to point out that not everything labeled as "making my house an eco-friendly house" actually results in a more environmentally friendly home. Many things sound good in the brochure, but when you consider everything, they might even be more harmful or resource-intensive than a "conventional" solution.
On the contrary, I often find that homeowners building an "eco house" tend to be very mission-driven, without really calculating all components.

A bit of self-awareness is necessary, as long as you really care about building ecologically – but yes, the label is given out quickly.
Funny that you feel that way; personally, I get the impression that people are often dismissed as crazy if they decide to build like this. As I said: I honestly don’t care how others think about it.

T_im_Norden schrieb:

No.
Assuming you build your house with a heat pump and use 100% green electricity.

Since only a limited amount of this electricity is available, to compensate for your consumption, electricity still needs to be generated from coal or gas.

This could mean that it would be more ecological to produce little CO2 with an efficient condensing boiler, rather than making electricity with "a lot" of CO2 in a coal power plant.

… see Tolentino’s post, I don’t need to repeat that.
By the way, a boiler also needs electricity…

Tassimat schrieb:

With the new pipelines, gas prices remain low.

Is that so? Forever and ever?
I have my doubts about that (although I admit they might be unfounded).

saralina87 schrieb:
What I do find a bit hypocritical, though, is pretending that eco-friendly houses and heat pumps or other alternatives are not actually better than, for example, gas heating, just because people also drive cars... That doesn’t make sense. Either you want to build ecologically or you don’t.

Exactly what I mean.

Let’s compare gas versus heat pump.
Now, you would have to balance the following factors (probably many more as well):

• Lifespan of gas boiler versus heat pump
• Manufacturing of the equipment: what materials are used, where do they come from, how sustainably sourced (side note: even “local wood” can be an ecological nightmare if old-growth forests in Eastern Europe are being cleared), how they are processed, what pollutants are generated, and under what labor conditions
• Operation: gas versus electricity—here, please don’t forget to factor in the manufacturing impact of the almost always necessary photovoltaic system, which is costly, as well as the question of whether an off-grid home is really more effective/efficient overall than renewable energy generated centrally; also consider that some gas suppliers already offer tariffs with at least compensation models like reforestation or CO2 certificates
• Disposal of the equipment: essentially the reverse of manufacturing

Hmm. It’s not really that clear-cut anymore. I don’t know what the definitive conclusion would be. I lack the experience, time, and data for that. It also depends on the building size and usage patterns. But it’s not as clear-cut as you feel. A gas heating system can also be the more ecological solution.

Green electricity always includes bioenergy as well. That means wood and other plants are simply burned. They just grow back.

Tassimat schrieb:

Green electricity always includes bioenergy. That means wood and other plants are burned. They just grow back.

Always? That probably depends on the electricity provider. Naturstrom invests only in wind and hydropower and already considers the ecological balance when building the plants. Berliner Stadtwerke invests in regional renewable electricity production.
And with sustainable biomass production and use, there is nothing wrong with bioenergy. It is indeed a renewable energy source.
Granted, cutting down virgin forests in Brazil for biofuel is not what is meant here.

Oh, and back on topic:
I also think KfW certification is not necessarily required. I’m building without it myself.
However, it’s not primarily a question of ecological standards but more an economic issue due to the KfW loans. And then it probably depends on the construction company whether you end up with a positive financial outcome.

You could also build completely ecologically without KfW. Whether you would meet the requirements is another matter.

Smialbuddler schrieb:

That’s exactly what I mean.

Let’s take gas versus heat pump as an example.
Now you would have to factor in the following (probably even more):

• Lifespan of gas boiler versus heat pump
• Manufacturing of the equipment: which materials, origin, sustainability of sourcing (side note: even “local wood” can be an ecological disaster if ancient forests in Eastern Europe are being cleared), processing methods, emissions generated, working conditions
• Operation: gas versus electricity—don’t forget to include the production impact of the almost always necessary photovoltaic system, which is costly, as well as considering whether a self-sufficient house is really more effective/efficient overall than, for example, centrally generated renewable electricity; also factor in that some gas suppliers already offer tariffs with some form of compensation scheme like reforestation or carbon certificates
• Disposal of the equipment: basically the reverse of manufacturing

Hmm. It’s really not that clear-cut anymore. I don’t know what the final outcome is. I lack experience, time, and data. It also depends individually on the building size and usage patterns. But it’s definitely not as straightforward as you suggest. A gas heating system can also be the more ecological solution.

I personally rely on all the studies on the life cycle assessment of the respective components and assume there’s a reason why one is subsidized and the other isn’t.
If I am completely wrong on that—fine.
Still, just to put it simply: natural gas is limited, and I’d rather not even start on fracking. Geothermal energy, on the other hand, is unlimited. Isn’t that at least one point that’s undisputed?

Tassimat schrieb:

Green electricity always includes bioenergy. That means wood and other plants are burned. They just grow back.

As I said, even a boiler needs electricity. Unfortunately, nobody has yet invented a perfect all-in-one solution. But if we now start debating whether green electricity or nuclear power is more ecological, it gets a bit ridiculous, don’t you think?

@saralina87
I have no doubt that people feel as comfortable in an environmentally friendly house (no matter how comprehensively that is measured) as others do in their own homes. However, this does not necessarily mean that nature itself (which is what really matters) fares better with an "eco house" than with a "conventional" house.
I generally find it difficult to accept slogans involving certificates, standards, and formulas, because they are of no use if daily behavior does not align with them. Unfortunately, I also observe that these "eco labels" (see above) are often used as a free pass for all sorts of things.
Whenever someone truly lives this consistently—really consistently—I have the utmost respect for them.
Unfortunately, I see too many organic food shoppers driving SUVs, eating pineapples, or enjoying trendy food products sourced from all over the world while vacationing in Costa Rica...
I am going to install an air conditioning unit, and yet I am confident that in my daily life, compared to some others, I maintain a fairly decent ecological balance.
Strictly according to the Bible—or was that in the building specification? "By their deeds you shall know them."